97svtgoin05gt Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Or how about this one? Don't do stupid things with your car. Well the way I feel about this is that to a certain degree, this car has been touted pretty loudly as having close to the performance of the 05-10 V-8 cars. The people who buy them and are into cars will behave like they have power to match those V8s. That may mean a lot of 0-60 runs or possibly a top end run here or there. The cost to put in a "Safe" driveshaft with Ford KNOWING full well people will fiddle with these cars to me is a no brainer. It should've been done. Fox body stangs went 130 and the driveshafts didn't fly out of them. Stuff like this shouldn't be happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Ok, which is more ridiculous: 1. A V6 Mustang that breaks a drive shaft when operated beyond the manufacturers performance limits or - 2. A V8 Camaro that breaks half shafts when operated within the manufacturers performance limits? Both Especially if the performance limit is way to low for the engine output. Edited December 20, 2011 by Fgts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Ok, which is more ridiculous: 1. A V6 Mustang that breaks a drive shaft when operated beyond the manufacturers performance limits or - 2. A V8 Camaro that breaks half shafts when operated within the manufacturers performance limits? I think they are equally ridiculous, with the following rationale: 1. A V6 Mustang owner that deliberately does something to cause this is either a fraudster or an imbecile (or perhaps both). 2. A V8 Camaro owner has to live with the fact that, well, he or she is stuck with a Camaro. Which would be a losing proposition even if the car's half shafts are intact! /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Well the way I feel about this is that to a certain degree, this car has been touted pretty loudly as having close to the performance of the 05-10 V-8 cars. The people who buy them and are into cars will behave like they have power to match those V8s. That may mean a lot of 0-60 runs or possibly a top end run here or there. The cost to put in a "Safe" driveshaft with Ford KNOWING full well people will fiddle with these cars to me is a no brainer. It should've been done. Fox body stangs went 130 and the driveshafts didn't fly out of them. Stuff like this shouldn't be happening. All I can say is that on The Mustang Source forums there are plenty of people that mod and race their V6s and there was nary a mention of broken drive shafts until this video showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) possibly a top end run here or there The difference between me and you is this: I think Ford is justified in setting limits on acceptable use. You think that any use that you find acceptable should be acceptable to Ford. What you have done, in a nutshell, is substitute your judgment for Ford's judgment. And the justification for substituting your judgment for Ford's appears to be no more than access to a computer with an internet connection and a tolerable facility with the English language. If you have any other arguments in favor of your particular perspective, I haven't seen them. Edited December 20, 2011 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 All I can say is that on The Mustang Source forums there are plenty of people that mod and race their V6s and there was nary a mention of broken drive shafts until this video showed up. and once again based on a single failure we experience knee jerk reactions......sincerely though, I DO beleive the stock driveshaft should be able to handle this, but Im really curious how the car was treated for its previous 17000 miles...... Me, I had an 88 5.0 with all sorts of "tweeks", got her to 300hp approx.....hit 145 a few times, no incidents.....and that top speed was calculated using the tach, because the Speedo only went to 85.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 and once again based on a single failure we experience knee jerk reactions......sincerely though, I DO beleive the stock driveshaft should be able to handle this, but Im really curious how the car was treated for its previous 17000 miles...... Me, I had an 88 5.0 with all sorts of "tweeks", got her to 300hp approx.....hit 145 a few times, no incidents.....and that top speed was calculated using the tach, because the Speedo only went to 85.................. Yeah, my '83 Mustang 5.0 when I sold it in 2000 had tuned headers, and I took off the leaky Motocraft 4 barrel carb and put on a bigger, high performance 4 barrel Holley for better throttle response, and more than a few times I wrapped that speedo needle right around the 85 mph top speed indicator and started up the other side. What a joke the 85mph speedo was on a 5.0 V8. I could about hit 85mph+ in third gear alone. Back in the 80's especially up North, traffic on I-75 was very light and you could see miles down road and with radar detector it was tempting to drive well over 100mph, especilly if you had high performance vehicle. I never got a ticket and never saw another high performance car get ticket either. Now traffic is too heavy even up North and would be too dangerous. Never had trouble with my driveshaft in the 17 years I had my modded Mustang before I sold it privately. It was a very reliable vehicle. Only thing that went on it was heater core and blew a clutch and bell housing under warranty in all those years. Drove it year around first two years, and then garaged in winter thereafter. No rust on body in 17 years as I had it undercoated soon after buying it new off showroom floor. Can't say anything bad about a Mustang. Great vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Kid should be hauled off to jail, for endangering others. Fan boys have to grow up and stop street racing, get thee to a track, dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Both Especially if the performance limit is way to low for the engine output. Kind of like the 85mph speedo on my 80's era 5.0 V8 Mustang with 5 speed manual and traction bars and slot wheels with wide TRX Michelin tires. But what do you expect in 55 maximum speed era. And 80's era 5.0 V8 push rod engines were so easy to mod for low bucks. And around here and I suppose in most big, urban areas, there were high performance parts stores all over the place. Ramchargers was the big one around here and did steady stream of business during those years before online sites and modern, tech engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Again, apples and oranges. Even in the fox body mustangs there were differences. Base models with the 4 and 6 cyl engines had lesser equipment than the models with the 5.0 V8. When you checked the box for the V8 you got more than just more cylinders. Same thing today - V6 model is entry level, V8 model has more of the "good stuff". Back in the day (60s and 70s) I saw many Mustangs (and Camaros) that came from the factory with straight sixes have transplants to get a V8 under the hood. And guess what, cars with transplants had more driveline problems. The guys that did not have problems were the ones who spent the money and time to change out the whole driveline. Hey, I even saw a late 60s Mustang that had a 428 that still had the 4 lug wheels! Bet that rear axle did not last too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Hey, I even saw a late 60s Mustang that had a 428 that still had the 4 lug wheels! Bet that rear axle did not last too long. IIRC, no 60's Mustangs had 4-lug wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 IIRC, no 60's Mustangs had 4-lug wheels. I believe the 6 cylinder models did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 IIRC, no 60's Mustangs had 4-lug wheels. I believe the 6 cylinder models did. Tom Servo's got this one... Mustang's 4-lug wheels make Falcon owners lives a littler easier when it comes time to replace things. :shades: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Again, apples and oranges. Even in the fox body mustangs there were differences. Base models with the 4 and 6 cyl engines had lesser equipment than the models with the 5.0 V8. When you checked the box for the V8 you got more than just more cylinders. Same thing today - V6 model is entry level, V8 model has more of the "good stuff". Back in the day (60s and 70s) I saw many Mustangs (and Camaros) that came from the factory with straight sixes have transplants to get a V8 under the hood. And guess what, cars with transplants had more driveline problems. The guys that did not have problems were the ones who spent the money and time to change out the whole driveline. Hey, I even saw a late 60s Mustang that had a 428 that still had the 4 lug wheels! Bet that rear axle did not last too long. why wouldnt they just transplant the driveshaft from the 4.6, after all, HP isnt that different....I think this is just an isolated incident though, however, if I did buy a V6 Mustang in Charcoal grey withe a six speed HID's and performance package, I probably WOULD swap out the driveshaft based solely on this incident....and yeah, the limiter would come off as well, suspension would be tweeked along with some Brembos.....hmmm, wonder if Shelbys blown V6s utilize the stock driveshaft.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 hmmm, wonder if Shelbys blown V6s utilize the stock driveshaft.... Somehow I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) why wouldnt they just transplant the driveshaft from the 4.6, after all, HP isnt that different....I think this is just an isolated incident though, however, if I did buy a V6 Mustang in Charcoal grey withe a six speed HID's and performance package, I probably WOULD swap out the driveshaft based solely on this incident....and yeah, the limiter would come off as well, suspension would be tweeked along with some Brembos.....hmmm, wonder if Shelbys blown V6s utilize the stock driveshaft.... I understand that speed limiters are put in place for various reasons, but I was under the impression the biggest reason was due to tire ratings. I never would of thought that a car with a 305 HP V6 would grenade a drive shaft at 135 mph. Of course, we also do not know of what other mods were done to this car nor do we know how it had been driven. If it had large, sticky tires on the rear and had a lot of clutch drop take offs, that could of made the front u-joint weak. Back when I was drag racing my 89 Mustang, the first part casualty I had after installing 3.73 gears, 31 spline axles, Auburn diff, 26-10 MT ET Drag slicks, Lakewood lower control arms & sub-frame connectors and achieved my first 1.60 60 foot time was my front u-joint. And that was with a 5.0, stock heads, stock intake, E cam, shorty headers & no cats. That's it. Luckily the drive shaft loop contained it and once I installed a Ford Racing aluminum drive shaft, I never had another problem. Like Dean said, my first mod on a new V6 Mustang would probably be a new drive shaft and a NHRA approved drive shaft loop. It would be cheap insurance. Edited December 20, 2011 by NLPRacing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tboneguy Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Prior to modding my 98 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC I did a lot of online research. I discovered that the driveshaft in the 94-98's was a two-piece unit which was a major limiting factor for the car. Fortunately Lincoln delivered the 93's with a one-piece driveshaft that many before me had proven could handle lower gears and much higher speeds. I found a 93 one-piece and installed it when I went to 3.73 gears and a custom tune with no speed limiter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I understand that speed limiters are put in place for various reasons, but I was under the impression the biggest reason was due to tire ratings. I never would of thought that a car with a 305 HP V6 would grenade a drive shaft at 135 mph. Of course, we also do not know of what other mods were done to this car nor do we know how it had been driven. If it had large, sticky tires on the rear and had a lot of clutch drop take offs, that could of made the front u-joint weak. Back when I was drag racing my 89 Mustang, the first part casualty I had after installing 3.73 gears, 31 spline axles, Auburn diff, 26-10 MT ET Drag slicks, Lakewood lower control arms & sub-frame connectors and achieved my first 1.60 60 foot time was my front u-joint. And that was with a 5.0, stock heads, stock intake, E cam, shorty headers & no cats. That's it. Luckily the drive shaft contained it and once I installed a Ford Racing aluminum drive shaft, I never had another problem. Like Dean said, my first mod on a new V6 Mustang would probably be a new drive shaft and a NHRA approved drive shaft loop. It would be cheap insurance. That's an important addition if you are racing. And when you race things break, fairly often. Drag racing is hell on components! A lot of stress for a few seconds. If if were just a chip and a removed limiter I doubt it would have happened. A fluke IMHO.......but that's why warranties are voided on race cars. I remember a buddy's drive shaft falling out of his 65 Fury. We were going out to race at night at a 1/4 mile we had marked on black top road. Boy, talk about sparks!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'm sorry, but if all you do is flash the PCM, you're irresponsible. Assuming that the stock shocks, stock driveline, stock brake and stock tires are sufficient for ANY non-stock tune is just flat out insane. I'm not trying to play devils advocate here but I think you should probably pay a visit to just about any Mustang Fourm and browse through the V6 section. One of the first things that almsot all of those guys who want to mod their V6 Mustang do is get a tuner and a cold air kit. It's so wiedespread in fact that if I was ever going to buy another V6 Mustang I would never buy one used becuase there is a good chance it has had a tune put on it. Perhaps the folks at Ford need to spend more time monitoring the Mustang Forums to find out that this is in fact happening, . . . . a lot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) And where on the road can you do 112 MPH? Thats nearly double the speed limit in most States... The speed limiter should be set at the highest speed limit in the U.S. Same for the GT, GT500, etc. I want to know how Ford came up with the arbitrary 112 MPH for the limiter. It's a little bit concerning that the car suffered such a catastrophic failure at 135...only 23MPH higher than the limited speed. Hell...I've done 120 in a 220HP Taurus...and the car handled it. And it's clear that the little V6 had a lot more to give. If the car is limited at 112, why give it 300+ HP? Edited December 20, 2011 by Boss444 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 One of the first things that almsot all of those guys who want to mod their V6 Mustang do is get a tuner and a cold air kit. The problem is when that's also the *last thing* that these guys do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It's a little bit concerning that the car suffered such a catastrophic failure at 135. Yeah. I mean for the driveline to fail the first time the guy went 135....... Oh wait, we don't know that. Come to think of it, we don't know much of anything about this car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'm not trying to play devils advocate here but I think you should probably pay a visit to just about any Mustang Fourm and browse through the V6 section. One of the first things that almsot all of those guys who want to mod their V6 Mustang do is get a tuner and a cold air kit. It's so wiedespread in fact that if I was ever going to buy another V6 Mustang I would never buy one used becuase there is a good chance it has had a tune put on it. Perhaps the folks at Ford need to spend more time monitoring the Mustang Forums to find out that this is in fact happening, . . . . a lot. Everyone is doing it...must make it right! So Ford designs the driveshaft to withstand 135 MPH. Ok, so now they tires have to be speed rated to handle. Well, so do the brakes. So do the... So now, the V6 costs $200 less than the GT. Why buy the V6? You gotta pay to play...this guy is going to pay more now than had he upgraded it properly in the first place. I don't feel sorry for him, or for anyone that chooses to take that chance. How anyone could blame Ford for their part braking at 20% over the specified limit is beyond me. And, like RJ said, we know absolutely nothing about this car, other than the fact that the its shaft went bad at 135. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Yeah. I mean for the driveline to fail the first time the guy went 135....... Oh wait, we don't know that. Come to think of it, we don't know much of anything about this car. bingo, and therein potentially lies the burden of proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Yeah. I mean for the driveline to fail the first time the guy went 135....... Oh wait, we don't know that. Come to think of it, we don't know much of anything about this car. Some people NEVER let a little ignorance stand in their way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts